In defence of Parliament.

AuthorRyan, Claude

Parliament is an ancient institution based on both written and unwritten rules and assumptions. This article argues that we must be careful in trying to reform Parliament that we do not introduce internal contradictions into the institutional structure.

Of all the political institutions in Quebec, the National Assembly is probably the one that lends itself least to rapid and radical changes. Strengthened by more than two centuries of existence, it has weathered many a storm and adapted to many unexpected situations while conserving its essential features. It is to a great extent thanks to the historical continuity of its Parliament that the Quebec people have been able to evolve for so many generations in a climate where political freedoms, in the plural, and political stability, in the singular, happily coexist.

The Quebec Government intends to invite us over the coming months to say whether we would like to trade in our parliamentary system for a presidential system. While recognizing that a presidential system has significant merits, I want to make clear right from the start my staunch preference for maintaining a parliamentary system. This system has many objective advantages, which have been frequently pointed out by authors on political science, including many Americans. It has served us very well here in Quebec. Among other things, it helps to differentiate Canada from United States. At a time when --because of the phenomenal progress of communications -- our powerful neighbour's influence on the way we think and live is more onmipresent than ever, we must take special pains to preserve the institutions that distinguish us from our neighbours south of the border, and to make only those changes in our institutions that are compatible with their essential nature.

The parliamentary system undoubtedly has its limitations and its weaknesses, but so does the presidential system. According to a number of studies, the comparison is not unfavourable to the parliamentary system. On the contrary; as long as the parliamentary system is not uniquely identified with the British system. It is a much broader concept than that. While the credit cannot be given exclusively to their political system, it does appear, from a number of studies, that stability is greater in countries with a parliamentary system.

Whatever choice is made, it will have to be consistent. As the Quebec Minister for the Reform of Democratic Institutions has aptly put it, there is no room for an a la carte menu when it comes to our political system. Either we opt for a presidential system and its main features, or we choose to preserve the parliamentary system and its well-known characteristics. We cannot cobble together the aspects that please us most from both systems. For example, the choice of the head of government by universal suffrage is a fundamental characteristic of the presidential system. But this method of choosing the head of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT